Nvidia GTC Highlights, Uber Is Too Cheap, Cliffwater and the Private Credit Panic

All right gangsters, we're back. That's right.

Luis Rojas and the chat Michael wants to know why we ditched last week.

We were away. We were in future proof.

Wake up man. Come on. We would never ditch you for no reason.

We were in Miami actually a week ago on Tuesday of last week.

We were interviewing the CEO Charles Schwab.

Got great feedback from that one. What about you?

He was awesome. I had a great time.

And credit to us. He's really good.

I thought we did pretty good.

That was one of our most organized conversations I would say.

We were on point. It was good for that one.

And he did. He spoke. He talked about Robin Hood, Goldman, everybody.

Like he said, this is what I think. I thought I thought that was awesome.

All right guys, we're back. It's five o'clock in the east on a Tuesday,

which means it's an all the addition of what are your thoughts?

My name is downtown Josh Brown.

My co-host is with me as always. His name is Michael Batnik. Say hello guys.

That's right Josh. Hello. Hello. All right.

I wanted to chat to give Michael a big wave.

Guys, we have a big show tonight. We have tons to get to.

But before we do, I want to say hello to a few people in the chat.

I see Jimmy Moke made it.

I'd like to go back to Miami if I am being honest.

Me too, Jimmy. For those who don't know,

Jimmy is the greatest publicist in all of financial services.

And Jimmy's from StreetCred, which represents

Ridhold's wealth management. Welcome to the show, Jimmy.

Appreciate seeing you in the chat.

Andrew Corman is here. Hello, Josh. Hello, Michael. What's up, man?

Who else is here? Jeremiah is here. Georgie D. I see you.

Gary Walters here. Caesar Vargas.

4,200 is here. First time watching.

Live shout out from to Kyle Villanoi. Well, thanks for being here, brother.

All right. We have a sponsor tonight. Michael, who's sponsoring the show?

It is public.

Today's show is sponsored by the platform for investors who take it seriously.

On public, you can build a multi-asset portfolio of stocks, bonds, options, crypto, whatever you want.

And now, generated assets, which allows you to turn any idea into an

investment index with aoi. It all starts with your prompt.

You can quite literally type anything, any prompt that put the aad to work.

It screens thousands of stocks, build a one-of-a-kind index.

And lets you back test it against the S&P 500.

Then in a few clicks, boom, you can invest in it.

So even if you put in the stupidest idea, you could say,

will this historically has this even been competitive with the market?

And it'll tell you right immediately.

It'll tell you.

So generated assets like ETFs, but the possibilities are infinite.

Completely customizable based on your thesis.

Not someone else is going to public.com slash W-A-Y-T.

And earn an uncapped 1% bonus when you transfer your portfolio.

That's public.com slash W-A-Y-T paid for by public investing.

Full disclosure in podcast description.

Today's show is sponsored by Janice Henderson Investors,

where we believe working together is the way to work better.

Like combining your portfolio plans and our in-depth strategy,

your valued assets, and our valuable insights,

your mission, and our vision.

Always working in perfect harmony to find the right investment opportunities.

Janice Henderson Investors investing in a brighter future together.

Visit JaniceHenderson.com.

Well, that was a 10 out of 10 read, Michael.

We're going to talk about Nvidia's GTC event,

which took place today, is taking place right now.

I think it's in the hockey arena where the San Jose Sharks play.

It's in something called the SAP Center.

And that's what I think it's at the hockey rank, T-B-H.

You want to double check that before I run with it?

Anyway, let me show you guys a chart of Nvidia.

Full disclosure, I am long, I've been long for more than 10 years.

The stock has not done much in the last six months.

Yeah, although it is one of the better performing Mag 7s

on most time frames, including recent time frames.

And I have to tell you, I think it's going to 250.

What do you think about that?

This is the best stock, this is literally the best company in the world.

And it's one of the cheapest stocks in tech.

And I think it's in this like slumber as the shareholder base sort of gets boarded with great news.

It's nothing but great news.

Yeah.

And I think a few items of uncertainty will be removed from the story.

And it's just going to launch.

And there won't be any news, no one, because news doesn't move this stock.

They put out the best earnings they've ever put out.

The stock goes down 2%.

Like it's not a news driven stock.

One day, people are going to be like, oh my god, I can't believe I didn't buy it.

Could you put that chart back on?

No, it's funny to say the shash.

I thought I'm not buying the stock today because it is coming.

Like the 200 day moving average is coming.

It's basically there.

Yeah.

And it's go time.

I think it's either going to break higher or lower.

I mean, listen, captain, obvious.

It's not going to go sideways forever.

Okay.

I did find an audible though.

I did find an audible that yesterday, Jensen said that they have, they have a through site,

through put insight.

What am I trying to say?

Visibility.

Boom.

You do $1 trillion worth of revenue for their newest version of trips, $8 trillion.

That's not bullshit.

They said $500 billion last year.

He opted to a trillion.

And the stock didn't do shit.

It was up a little bit yesterday, closed at the lows down today.

So I don't know what's going to get you guys for that numbers for a three year period.

It's for 25, 26 and 27 and that is a lot of cash.

He took his, he took his visibility, his backlog, basically, and extended it to a trillion

dollars.

But let me not hedge and stock your own.

Let me not hedge.

I agree with you.

I think that the high, you have to give the bulls a benefit of the doubt.

I think the likelihood of a break out as opposed to a breakdown is high or probability.

So yeah, I would say 250.

You know, one of the things would triple digit stocks that I always do.

It's like a mental exercise.

I asked myself, could an $18 stock go to 25?

Happens every day.

Yeah.

Literally every day.

Now, the difference here is we're talking about trillions and not billions, which requires

a lot of investor capital to come into the stock.

But this is a company that said next year they're going to do or the analysts expect them

to do $330 billion in revenue next year.

So forget about backlog.

Like that's the estimate right now.

I think it's going to go and I think it will be without warning.

And I think you and I will be on the show maybe next Tuesday, maybe in six months, and we're

going to be like, oh my god, Nvidia is Nvidia again, it's doing that thing is Jensen

Wang, the new Steve Jobs.

I'm going to buy the stock.

Yes, he is.

Well, he isn't.

He isn't.

I would say that Jensen is right now.

I think one of the best showmen, one of the most interesting things that I'm saying

the best today.

Okay.

The difference is I listened to, so he had a call today with the analysts, okay?

To recap, to discuss, to let them ask questions.

I listened to it as an hour, 16 minutes.

I just don't understand what he's talking about.

He's not speaking my language.

A lot of this is very technical in nature.

So I listen, I think he's got some great one liners, but generally speaking honestly,

I don't know what he's talking about.

Well, fortunately for you, I'm here.

Let's put that picture back up.

This comes from Takem, a.k.a. at first adopter.

Tay wrote basically the Bible of the NVIDIA story.

He wrote a book.

I think it's from last year.

He, I would say, at least for me, I think he's the world's foremost authority on NVIDIA.

And of course, he was there today.

That's a great shot.

And that is Steve Jobs' Esk.

I can't think of, I can't think of more than five corporate leaders, maybe even three

where this might happen.

Like this could happen with Elon today.

Carp.

And probably Warren Buffett.

And like, is there a fourth name on the list?

Carp.

Oh, that's a, that's a good one.

I didn't think of that one.

But like that's about it.

I think that's like, I think that's sort of, it's not that there aren't other famous corporate

leaders.

That many of them are now retired.

And this guy's like in the game, he's 63 years old.

He's the, not just the CEO of the company, he's the founder, he's obviously visionary.

And I do think that he has that level of like cult status and at least amongst people

that know what the f*** is going on in this world, right?

So he's, to your point though, he doesn't sell candy bars.

It's not consumer products.

Right.

It's very little of it is consumer facing other than for like video game aficionados or

like, it's not like, it's, it's just not as simple as like, oh, here's an iPhone, everyone

you know has one.

It's, it's a, or a Tesla that you see on the road every 10 seconds.

So there's a little bit different.

Here's a chart.

Here's another pick.

So this is where the puck is going.

And this is what I want to talk about today.

He has gone out of his way in his two hour plus presentation today to make it clear how

many areas the tentacles of this octopus are now jutting into.

And it's literally the physical world is, is like the, seems to be like the main message

that he wants to get across here.

We are beyond the point of ask the chatbot a question and we'll give you an answer.

Now we are getting to the point where the chatbot, the, the, the, the AI is doing things

for you.

And increasingly not just things online chart off.

This is what I think the big takeaway is not just for Nvidia investors.

I know not everybody cares, but for everybody.

He said, we have reached the inference inflection.

So in inference in distinction to training, most of what's gone on the last three years

since the advent of a chat GPT, it had to do with training models.

So making the, making the chatbot smarter.

And now inference is the ongoing usage.

Think of inference almost as like a utility where you just pay the bill every month because

it's continued use.

It's not just about who can train the best model.

The model race will continue without a doubt.

Nobody's done and Robbick's not done, Sam Altman's not done.

But where the puck is going is the physical world and the inference inflection.

So I want to share a couple of things I pull about as some of the articles that I think

are relevant.

This is the SF gate.

Wang envisions Nvidia maintaining its instrumental role in AI by continuing to feed the feverish

demand for chips that power chatbots and expanding to each into emerging markets for inference.

Once an AI tool is trained, inference chips enable the technology to take what it has learned

and produce responses, whether that's writing a document, creating an image more efficiently

than the processors that were used while the large language models were being built.

Efficiency is about to become really important if we're going to be fighting over electricity.

Everything that happens with an AI interaction between either agents or people in AI generates

a token.

Tokens are expensive because the input is electricity.

So being more efficient means getting more out of the chips that you already have and

being able to do so in an electrically efficient way.

And that's really what he wanted to talk about.

The inference inflection has arrived, I think, was the key note of the whole thing.

One more from courts and then I want you to react to it.

Wang's answer was to widen the lens to make the market bigger in the workload messier.

He said the inference inflection has arrived and built the middle of the keynote around

a simple argument, AI can now do productive work.

Once that happens, the demand picture changes.

Training giant models and admiring them was never going to be the final stage.

That all moves into production where the meter never stops running.

The sharpest line of the keynote was the simplest.

The inference inflection has arrived.

Wang broke inference into two stages, pre-fill and decode and laid out a system in which

Nvidia's Vera Rubin chips handle the pre-fill work while Grock is an acquisition they

made, sort of acquisition they made, Grock derived silicon tackles decode.

That's the step that actually spits out the answer.

So inferences where Nvidia's next chapter gets messier, training made the company which

serving hundreds of millions of users in real time is where the customers start asking questions

about cost, latency, and whether they really need the same silicon for every step.

So he doesn't just want to be known as the model training silicon, now he wants to be

a permanent part of the way that we're interacting and deriving inference from our interactions

every single minute of every day around the world.

That seems to be what the company wants to land on the public.

What are your thoughts?

Let me answer your question with a different question, because I can't answer that, but

I thought this was interesting.

He was asked about the spend from their competitors, not the competitors, the customers.

Like a lot of the focus, a lot of your spend, you hear from the hyperscalers that they're

spending $600 billion this year.

They're going to get more revenue as a result of their spend.

Where is that going to come from?

And he, like I, answered the question a little bit differently.

He was talking about, he was talking about the private companies.

So he said, I wish those companies were public.

And the reason for that is because then you'll see what I see.

No company in history has ever grown as a startup company, non-public company, increasing

revenues, one to two billion dollars a week.

John, throw this chart on.

Look what anthropic is doing, catching up to open AI.

This is their revenue.

It's hockey sticking right now.

It's unbelievable.

So that is, that is Claude Infrance Activity, happening like on a second by second basis.

And interestingly.

And interestingly, I didn't get a chance to read the article today yet, but the journal

is reporting that, try to off these open AI is not going backwards, but they're trying

to do more of what anthropic is doing, which is clearly winning the race to code, winning

the enterprise race.

Right?

Child was the first consumer facing product.

And that is going to be interesting to watch to see if they can catch up there.

Well, so that's what it is, it's AI can now do things.

It started out, AI used to be, used to be like six months ago.

AI was for who, what, when, where, how.

You would ask it questions, it would give you the answers.

Now it's going to be tasked with actually completing things.

Okay.

This is what Infrance is about.

And this is what Jensen is trying to make sure like investors don't lose the, the focus

that that's what this company is really all about.

So I don't know who there, who, like who's number two, if, if, if, if people are not

buying from Nvidia, TP, TP use from Google and, and, and to a lesser extent, AMD.

Okay.

So the, so the biggest mode that Nvidia has and has always had is the CUDA software platform,

which celebrated 20 years today.

So be caught, CUDA runs in every cloud, public, private, mag seven, you name it.

Like every, everyone working in AI is familiar with CUDA.

It's like the operating system of AI.

That is a fairly substantial mode.

That being said, again, when we're talking about cost and efficiency, other companies

who have the ability to design and produce silicon are going to look for ways to do things

faster and more efficiently and, and not, you know, try to run everything through the

most expensive, fanciest chips on earth, which are coming from Nvidia.

So that is, that is one of the, I don't want to say controversies.

That's one of the open questions that's keeping this stock at like 20 times earnings.

So Jensen was asked about his, the potential unsustainability of their high margins.

And he said, listen, I'm not looking for value.

When I'm talking, when we're doing business with the SML and Taiwan semi, I pay for a premium

product.

And what the Nvidia chips are able to do, I saw this guy on Twitter, compound 248.

Tell a story about how he called the company to get his rug cleaned, all right, this carpet

clean, whatever.

And it took him a minute to realize that he was talking to a chatbot.

Yeah.

But it was, it was off hours.

They asked him what he needed.

They gave him a quote.

They read back his information to him.

He said, no, no, no, my email address is actually this.

They fixed it.

They booked an appointment with him.

All while the employees were at home doing something else.

Unbelievable.

And this is only, it's only just beginning.

So no one is, I said, I said, no, I don't want to do it.

Like, all that shit, it gets over.

It's ending very soon.

Well, so, right, the difference between, hey, Siri, what time is it?

I'm sorry, I did that to everybody.

The difference between asking a natural language question to AI and getting a response

versus, take care of this for me.

Like, deal with my customers from 7 p.m until 7 a.m. when they come back to work, when

my employees come back to work, deal with my customers overnight.

So not only, so now we're not leaving voicemails anymore.

Now we're getting into a realm where companies are going to be able to program their customer

interaction.

And if it's done well, it'll feel seamless with the way they're dealing with customers

in the daytime using humans.

And it's not, it's not like there for everybody.

It'll take time.

We will all grow increasingly comfortable with those interactions and satisfied with

how they turn out.

But this is back to the main point.

This is not training models anymore.

This is now, the meter is always running because we are constantly using the thing that's

now built.

And that is that inference inflection point that he's talking about.

They talked about a new CPU.

CPU is linear processing, similar to what we are all accustomed to with our PCs.

But also, it's an important part of running data centers.

You do need high power CPUs.

They talked about NemoClaw, which Jensen seems obsessed with.

That's an AI agent platform that people are building on.

And Charton, they brought out a robot.

It's an Olaf robot for those who are into frozen, and they did this in partnership.

Do we have this picture?

They did this in partnership with Disney, and this is basically to show now the physical

manifestation of all this AI.

And you can't do robotics without AI.

And so these aren't two distinct technological waves.

These are highly overlapping things that are happening all at once, and they're reinforcing

each other, which is part of why I'm so bullish on Nvidia, the stock.

Because I don't think the robotics thing is anywhere near being priced into the current

valuation.

But as we start seeing more and more real world products running Nvidia Silicon in the

physical space, that will change.

You know what has Nvidia chips in it?

Those little buckets that roll down the street, Miami, the delivery robots, that serve robotics,

running on AI chips from Nvidia.

Why do you think the stock isn't working?

Do you think the street is worried that meta-aological?

I told you.

Go ahead.

No, I think people believe, and probably they're not wrong.

That the Nvidia chips are pricing themselves out of a lot of like everyday applications.

And you will see TPUs from Google, from Alphabet, and others.

You will see, I'm not going to say cheaper, I'm going to say more abundant lower cost chips,

be able to take a lot of workloads, and people are worried about market share, so that's

one.

We still have this drama hanging over us about the financing of data centers.

And if the financing to data centers in any way gets called into question to the point

where people pull back the reins, the first company to feel it is going to be Nvidia, they'll

feel it more than anyone.

Because where do you think the orders are coming from?

When you hear them say trillion dollar backlog, well, where do you think that money is coming

from?

That's coming from.

The orders of data centers who need the chips to make the data centers work.

So those are the two, to me, those are the two things hanging over Nvidia's valuation.

There was a third thing that I think is no longer an overhang, which is their China business.

And in fact, relations between the US and China seem to be throwing.

And Nvidia said they're getting the H200 business back this year.

Now, investors are not going to give them credit for that in the form of the stock going

up because there've been so many fits and starts with Nvidia and China.

Can they do business there?

Can they not do business there?

So I don't know that you'll get a multiple boost from that, but it's a negative that's

been kicked out from under it and is no longer something that we could say is keeping the

stock down.

I want to get to this too.

This was really interesting.

In the middle of hours worth of commentary, Jensen said, they plan to use 50, 50% of

their cash flow in the second half of this year on shareholder value creation activities

like dividends and buybacks.

It was actually the CFO who said that.

Okay.

You think the shareholders care about a token dividend being paid?

I don't.

Not the short-term shareholders.

I think the long-term shareholders care, of course.

Okay.

If this is going to start to look more, I don't mean utility in a denigrated way like

it's boring, but if this is going to look more utility-esque with just this constant

inferencing related cash flow tokens being generated, then maybe the dividend is actually

makes a ton of sense, but my bias with tech stocks is I just feel like the shareholder

base would much rather see the flow trend.

I do.

Yeah.

But listen, you think about the amount of cash flow being generated here.

There's no reason not to do both.

Apple did both.

Most of the large technology stocks have figured out how to do both and imagine this thing

is paying like a 1% dividend yield and it starts shrinking the float by 2% a year.

I can't imagine that.

The boost to earnings per share as a result of that as well as bringing in new shareholders

who never even considered owning the stock.

So I think it goes 250.

I hope it happens this year.

I hope I don't look like an asshole.

This is not investment advice, but the other thing I think is there will not be a bell.

They're not going to tell you it's just one day, I think.

It's just going to, it's been consolidating for six months.

Well, I think it's there.

I think like the rubber is meeting the road.

I think it's going to be moving out of the road.

Right.

People like what's the catalyst?

They had their earnings.

They were blockbuster earnings.

They had GTC.

Well, it's a fair question.

You don't need a catalyst.

Higher prices.

That's a catalyst.

Well, one, here's the catalyst.

Imagine it goes to 200.

It's been sitting between 180 and 190 for six months.

Yeah, that's all you need.

Imagine it goes to 200.

That's all you need.

What do you think?

What do you think happens then?

Think about that.

Everyone that watched it at 180 for six months goes,

oh, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Yeah.

I'm doing this 30 years.

I'm 49 years old.

That's, I'm not saying it has to happen.

I'm just telling you, that's how it does happen.

It always happens that way.

Sorry, Apple too.

What's a catalyst on Apple?

Apple hasn't been a catalyst driven stock in five years.

Who are you yelling at?

You, the colloquial, you, everyone, all of you.

What's the catalyst?

Next.

All right, here's the thing that I am the most worried about.

And that thing is financial stocks.

Adam Parker.

That's a good one.

Although, although they went up today.

Great.

Are you less worried?

I am 2% less worried.

All right, Adam Parker said we are downgrading financials.

We have been writing for weeks now

that we are teetering on our overweight financial recommendation.

And we are now moving to make it downgrade.

We no longer see estimate,

achievability as above average.

Financials typically don't perform well after oil spikes.

And we are sufficiently worried about credit issues spreading

that the risk reward on multiple expansion

appears increasingly poor.

Reading that owl or zine or Deutsche Bank

has issues as one thing.

But the private credit parts of Blackstone and Morgan

are getting their investors according to reports

this past week.

And that is enough to make us throw in the towel

and our overweight recommendation.

More over us, as we wrote several weeks ago,

we are no longer as optimistic

that many of the larger financial institutions

are AI beneficiaries as we were previously

large institutions.

It's a big one.

Yeah, because it was Nick Hollis saying

that JP Morgan is a tech stocker.

Maybe it was Adam, actually.

Large institutions invariably complete on pricing

and pay their employees more than one times or good,

making it less likely that any AI benefits

accrued to the shareholders.

Typically financial institutions will spend money

and run AI systems in parallel to legacy systems

for some trial periods, potentially making

bank efficiency ratios more stagnant

than many investors are currently discounting.

We should have known when top-down strategists

were universally bullish at the year ahead outlooks

that we should run for the hells.

Well, I'll tell you what,

investors are running for the hells.

Try not, please.

Bank of America shows record outflows from financials

as in record outflows, as well as biggest outflows

from bank loans since April 2025.

I suppose if there's any good news here,

and I'm grasping at straws, is that like they've maybe

have been sufficiently de-versed from the sense

of like investor optimism is clearly gone.

But I have said repeatedly, don't show me the surveys,

and I understand the P.I. people feel.

I believe the stock market more than I believe the surveys.

And when people were heming and hung about it,

this or that, I pointed to Capital One Financial

at an all-time higher 52-week AI, and I said, come on.

How bad could things be if Capital One,

credit exposure everywhere, is at the top of the stack.

How bad could things be if our life financial,

the biggest subprime lender, is at a 52-week AI?

They ain't at 52-week AI anymore.

Look at this chart.

Capital One is in a 30% drawdown.

This is my attention.

It's nasty.

That's nasty.

So I'm not even talking about-

That's been, look how fast that happened too.

I'm not even talking about the private credit stuff,

which of course we'll get to,

and the marks and the this and the that.

I don't like this at all.

I think it's binary.

I think if this private credit thing does not spill over

into a regular lending and regular financial activity

in the public markets,

I could see a scenario where the XLF goes out

at the highs of the year.

Because we are getting rate cuts.

This oil price spike is temporary, I hope.

Hold on, you know what?

The market says that where I like that again,

the hike is a cut now.

Yeah, I believe it.

But hard is it us to believe it.

I don't believe it even though I don't believe it.

I think the market's overreacting to oil.

Terran Ova was on TV saying something really smart.

He showed this chart from 2011 to 2013

where price of oil for three years averaged $95.

And the stock market basically did nothing but rally.

So this idea that $95 is this insurmountable level for oil.

Number one, we produce more of that oil here.

Therefore, it shows up as like exports

and it's actually profitable activity for US stocks.

That's one, a lot has changed in the last 15 years.

And then number two, he showed us the chart.

Like we've been here before.

We've seen this sustained mid 90s oil price

and regardless, companies found ways to get around it

and we had a rallying stock market.

So I don't believe that an Iran related,

straight of hormones related oil price spike

is necessarily the thing that's gonna cause the Fed

to completely change course and start.

And here's a thought exercise.

What the fuck would be the point?

Let's say oil is at 95 and two months and the Fed says,

well, maybe we should hike.

Maybe we should make things worse

for the people who are already suffering

with higher gas prices.

Let's give them higher interest rates

on their credit cards too.

To one end, what is it?

In what way does that solve oil prices?

It certainly doesn't.

In no way does it solve oil prices.

So that's the same stupid-ass instinct

that the Europeans had in the wake of the great financial crisis.

They thought the right move is to hike interest rates.

Boy, did they have to about face shortly after?

I just don't believe the Fed hasn't learned anything

and that we're equally likely to see a rate hike.

I totally agree.

Absolutely no chance.

I totally agree with you.

And this is not what's gonna happen.

Trump will put this guy in a gulag

if he raises interest rates right now.

So I'm inclined to believe we are gonna get rate hikes.

This year, the only real question is,

God, let's hope they're not emergency rate cuts this year.

Let's hope they're not emergency rate cuts.

The other thing bringing it back to the financial

that I don't love, and this could be a total overreaction.

This could be an AI overreaction.

American Express, which is the premier card

for luxury shoppers for the upper part of the K,

the stock is in a 20% drawdown.

I would say probably a great buying opportunity,

but I hope I'm not wrong

because if it goes down 30%,

then I don't think American Express

will go down 30% and just the market be completely wrong.

I think there will have to be a softening upper K

for that to transport out.

If this, if this, we're gonna get to the private credit stuff

and private equity stuff, guys,

we will do that in a minute.

So I don't wanna do a whole digression here.

Again, if that somehow can be contained

and run its course and people stop freaking out

and it just sort of works itself out,

we don't have a financial crisis that spills out

of private credit and becomes the next subprime

which you and I talked about last week.

If none of that happens,

I think some of these sell-offs and financials

will have proven to be really good buying opportunities.

I have no proof of this.

I'm just giving you my feelings on the subject

because, and I get it, it's scary.

We've been reliant on the top half of the K

and the wealthiest people doing the most spending.

And now we're seeing their asset prices teetering,

especially like all the people that are invested

in private assets tend to be the wealthiest people

in the country and what is the negative psychology

as a result of a private credit panic?

Is it people using their amics, black cards, less?

To travel and go to restaurants?

But like, it's just, it's premature.

Yeah, yeah.

It's premature.

Let's get moving.

The Securities and Exchange Commission

is preparing a proposal to eliminate the requirement

to report earnings quarterly

and instead give companies the option

to share results twice a year

according to people familiar with the matter.

This was a scoop at the Wall Street Journal.

And I'd love to just hear your top line thoughts on,

is this good, is this bad?

I hate it. I hate it. Why?

I think the charitable interpretation

is that coming public sucks and it does and it's expensive

and it's annoying.

And one of the most annoying things

is having to report earnings quarterly.

So if that will lead more companies to come public, fine.

Great, I like that. I don't think it will either.

Okay, why do I hate it?

Because companies, spoiler alert, lie.

And the public, the court of public stock markets

keeps them honest.

And I understand that there are countries around the world

that report semi-annually, they're not Americans,

they're not liars, sorry.

So I think you need, I think you need to hear

from these companies every 90 days, not every 180 days.

Are you saying American executives

are more likely to cheat than executives from other countries?

I can't prove that, but yes, yes.

I don't know about that.

Yeah, yeah. I am.

Okay, that's a lot.

No, it's not. Come on here.

Is are any Canadians in the house?

Don't be afraid.

You don't, you don't think it's true?

No, I don't think it's true.

I think in Asia, I think in Asia,

they have financial scandals every day.

Fine, you know what, I can't comment on the wire card.

The wire card, fine.

Florida is a German company.

Fine, fine.

I'm not, they're my king was from Sweden.

I'm not saying there's not frauds everywhere.

The short sellers refer to Canada as Arctic Mexico.

I, forget about that. I'm sorry.

I forget about that.

I don't, I don't think so, dude.

You're pandering.

You are so full, you are so full of shit.

You're pandering needlessly.

Let me, are we, are we saying executives in India, China?

I'm not saying that.

I'm not saying that.

I'm not saying that.

Come on.

Did I say that executives in other countries will not lie?

I just said I'm not saying that.

I said more likely to.

So you're, I'm saying they're more likely.

Don't get in here.

I said they're more likely to lie.

I stand by that.

I didn't say executives in other countries won't lie.

I said, yeah, I think our executives

are more likely to take advantage of shareholders.

Oh, okay.

So you're saying what I, you're saying what I'm saying,

you said are more likely, are more likely.

Uh-huh.

You're giving examples of fraud and saying that I said

that fraud doesn't exist elsewhere.

Of course it does.

Oh, thank you, Matt.

Epic in the chat, Nortel.

It's a big one.

All right, it doesn't matter.

Be that as it may.

Let's say you're right.

Let's say you're right about that.

I think that, I think that less transparency

is bad for shareholders.

And I don't see how you could say otherwise.

Ooh, what about a foreign born executive in America?

Stop.

Stop.

I don't see how less transparency is a good thing.

I just don't.

Who benefits?

All right, I agree with you.

So the first of all, I agree on every point that you made

other than Americans or scam artists.

The first point that you made was the most powerful one.

If the purpose of this is to alleviate the concerns

of VC backed companies who are holding off as long as possible,

and you're like, hey, great news.

Now, instead of doing four quarterly reports,

it's just June and December or whatever, those semiann.

Like, that's not, that doesn't do anything for me.

So it's almost like a solution is,

I shouldn't say a solution in search of a problem.

There is a very high cost, both in dollar terms

and time and energy compliance.

There is a very high cost of being a public company in America.

I would argue, tough shit.

That's the privilege of taking money from American households.

You sort of have to just live with it.

You're all zillionaires.

It's fine.

High enough people and do your stupid quarterly report.

That being said, we have a great chart here.

This is the UK, their standard tends to be semi-annual.

Yeah, they're very honest people over there.

Sure, very charming.

Have you had any Dickens, sir?

They have as many scam artists per capita as we do.

All right, but the companies in the UK,

250 overwhelmingly, almost a hundred percent

around a semi-annual schedule.

High enough, I can't let this go.

We, we, I'm, we all day.

We are the most capitalist, money-hungry society

in the world.

And therefore, people's motivations

to do unscrupulous things are higher here,

because we have, we have the most

incentives you might have a point.

We have the, we have the most materialistic society

in the entire world.

We worship the dollar like no other country around the world.

So I'm not saying that there's not scumbags everywhere.

Obviously there are, but we bow at the altar of the dollar here.

Okay, from it, from the standpoint of incentives,

like the benefits of being aggressive.

And how to hire, how do our executives,

how do our executives, how do our executives get paid?

Where does the bulk of their compensation come from?

Stop options.

Okay.

Okay.

I'm with you on that.

I thought you were being racist again.

I like what you're saying now better.

Like, is our, is the, is American style capitalism

and the US stock market more prone to?

Yeah, of course.

Because of the way that you structured,

I think, I think there's a lot to what you're saying.

I don't disagree with that.

It's, it's, it's less insane to me now.

All right, so this is, this hasn't happened yet.

What's gonna happen is a proposal is published.

And then it's subject to a public comment period.

For 30 days, the SEC listens to what people have to say.

And I would imagine, you're gonna hear the Andrewsson cohort

come in and say, yes, do this.

And in fact, what if we never have to report earnings?

And then on the other side, you're gonna hear from a lot

of the machinery that profits from all this reporting.

They're all gonna come out of the woodwork too,

the bureaucracy, because, because this greases the wheels

of their business.

Present this as exhibit eight, your honor.

This, this conversation.

Right, now one, now one thing that I wanted to ask you,

by the way, how long have companies been reporting

on a quarterly basis?

It's about 50 years.

It started in the 70s.

It became like a standard thing.

And then CNBC turned it into like a sport.

You know, really, like people,

companies report earnings, nobody even knew.

It's like, oh, they got a letter in the mail a week later.

So TV sort of turned it into like the playoffs.

Okay.

Do you believe, so you don't believe

that there will be more IPOs, I'm with you on that.

Do you think a lot of companies will take them up on it?

I have a few possibilities, sure.

Okay.

So this is what I wanted to ask you,

which companies are most likely, if something like this

passes, and I don't know the likelihood,

which companies are the first ones to say awesome.

See you every six months.

Okay, Tesla.

Oh, this is my first guess, 100%.

And in fact, the idea might have actually originated

from Elon telling Don, Don Jr.

Hey, I don't think you'd be that I have to go

on these conferences.

I don't think Elon loves it.

I don't think, you know what,

we don't need to hear from energy companies, frankly.

Time out.

Broke your half away.

Ooh, I'm sorry, I just said that.

That's number two on my list.

Need to.

You know, it's funny though.

Twining.

Are we twining?

No, because they hate that game.

Okay, okay.

They hate it.

So at first, I had Berkshire as number one to least likely,

and then I changed him to the other category,

because I could see them going either way.

I could see them saying, listen,

we're long-term investors.

Our shareholders are all long-term investors.

They genuinely don't need to hear from us every 90 days.

I could also see them saying,

you know what, it's tradition,

more transparency is better,

but I have them as number two.

Number three.

What, wait, so this is interesting.

Here's this interesting.

I bet you Berkshire likes it

that the stocks they own will be reporting quarterly,

but they hate this so much.

They release their earnings on Saturday mornings,

and they have never held an earnings conference call.

They don't play the game.

They don't talk to the sell side.

Yeah, they would always.

They would like to have a third name

that you could think of that would just stop on a dime.

Yeah, I don't think Mark Zuckerberg's like doing it.

Oh no, I think he uses it to promote it.

I was going to say Michael Seller.

No, he loves it.

He loves it.

I've listened to a few of his calls.

He loves it.

A lot of the earnings on whatever they're doing

are completely outside of his control,

because they have to account for the value of Bitcoin,

and it's not like they're doing anything.

It's just a little bit. He's a showman.

He loves it.

I think the banks will report quarterly forever,

because they're in the confidence business,

and it's their way of reminding people

how strong their balance sheets are.

And I think the banks would be the last sector

to ever decline the opportunity

to do that every 90 days.

Like, all right, things still look good.

They're like in the business of selling that stability.

Correct.

As far as most like to take them up on the offer,

it's like, yeah, you know what, we don't have to do this.

Energy companies.

We know what the input is for the most part.

Like, they don't really say a whole lot.

That's like, oh, like which sector could you live

without hearing from?

100%.

We know.

We know.

Once a year on Exxon.

Okay, here's the last one on my list.

I don't think that David Ellison is going to have

very much fun talking to analysts.

There is so much debt on that stock.

I think he's really not going to enjoy himself.

Is it a hundred?

Is the combined company going to have a hundred

and ten billion dollars in debt or something?

Yeah.

That's a lot.

It's incredible.

It's a lot.

The whole conference call is like, all right, well,

Batman was a hit and we pay down another $4 billion

in debt this quarter.

Yeah.

So there was only two other companies that I could think of

that would be least likely to skip earnings calls.

And that would be number one, Palantir.

I think Alex Carp loves delivering a show for his shareholders.

He loves it.

And Johnson just wants to, he just like, he gets revved up for it.

And Johnson loves it too.

So that's my list.

It's a great list.

Well done.

Do you think this will happen?

Probably.

I think probably.

I think it's like 24.7 stocks.

It's funny.

Now we can trade stocks 24.7.

But we're going to limit the amount of transparency

that the companies are forced to provide us.

It almost is like, it's almost like a joke.

But this is what we're doing.

I really, I don't like it.

All right, I'm going to step away from my wikes.

I'm going to get loud.

We're talking all the time about private credit, right?

About the gating, the loans, the nav, the this.

Hey, guess what?

Private credit, these are loans made to company.

You either get paid back or you pretend to extend

or there's a restriction or whatever.

Why are we talking about private equity?

Are you f***ing kidding me?

If there is problems with private bonds,

what do you think the equity is doing?

Are you kidding me?

Could you imagine the price of the equity?

Could you imagine if we're worried about the debt?

Salesforce did seven and a half billion dollars

in earnings last year.

And Salesforce equity is down almost 60%.

What do you think company XYZ with an earnings,

EBITDA, of $250 million?

What do you think their equity is down?

With leverage, are you kidding me?

What is the gist of what the guy from Apollo said?

John, play this, please.

I'm just curious, like,

when you think about Apollo's portfolio

on private equity or other in the street like,

do you, where do you see the pain?

I think I literally think all the marks are wrong.

No, you're asking me.

I think private equity is wrong.

All, dude, all the marks are wrong.

Now, he was talking about the software names,

but all, and guess what?

This industry has been built on over the last 10 years.

All of these beautiful recurring revenue SaaS companies

where the earnings and the everything's predictable.

Are you kidding me?

You said you could set your watch

by the cash flows coming in each month.

So if the loans are bad, oh my God, dude, the equity.

So the equity.

So that was John Zito from Apollo Global Management.

And I think Apollo, like a year ago,

they're all private credit for the most part.

I think a year ago they stepped away from the software sector.

I was reading somewhere where they were like,

more cautious on software than the other lenders.

And I think because of AI disruption.

And they, I don't know, I feel like

if I'm gonna bottom fish in one of these things

in the equity of the private credit companies themselves,

Apollo's got to be high on my list.

Mine too.

Yeah, so I haven't done it.

I keep talking about doing it.

Today they all went up a lot.

In fact, the top names in the S&P 500,

I think Aries was the fifth best stock of 5% today.

Apollo was next up of 5% Blackstone of 4.5.

All right, so though this chart on John from chart good.

So Blackstone the price, the stock is down,

I don't know, 40%.

Yeah.

And the forward EPS is still there at all time high.

And this is really remarkable.

Like the disconnect here.

And now I don't think that people

sound the stock gradients, okay?

Just to be very clear, I think the disconnect makes sense

because the headlines, the outflows,

they're not going to stop on a dime.

But and also this idea that it's going to bleed over

and it's the next subprime and it's a GFC 2.0.

I reject that premise.

I obviously could be wrong.

Like no evidence, there's no evidence of it.

So for right now, you can reject it.

I just think it's simpler.

I think it's even simpler.

I don't think you need to be an expert

on every investment these companies have

in every one of the funds they run.

I think you just have to know one very big thing.

2026 fundraising is going to be the worst.

Correct.

They've seen maybe the last five years.

Yeah, since the GFC.

In absolute dollar terms, this could be the worst fundraising

environment for most of these funds offered

by most of these companies.

And you don't have to be an expert in tier one

and all these leans and like you don't have to skip all that.

You can end run that.

So this is not the same thing, okay?

So I'm going to make a comparison that is not apples

to apples.

Because black stones be read.

None of these companies were real estate primarily company,

real estate dominated companies.

It was a piece of their business, okay?

Apollo is primarily a private credit company.

This is their business, aries, this is their business.

But the be read stuff was so bad.

The headlines were so bad because we knew the fundamentals

were going to be so bad on office.

We knew for a fact that it was going to be a blood bet.

And it was.

And we also knew, but we also knew that a lot of the holders

were unsophisticated, new to the asset class,

and that they would redeem more than they should have,

which then creates sales that should never have taken place.

And you know what happened?

I don't know this marked the bottom.

You had Calper step in with a massive injection of liquidity.

They got preferential treatment.

And I suspect if we continue to see

redemptions on these loans, which we're going to.

And let's say that the software loans,

yeah, they're not bad today.

Mark Lipsholtz, the fundamentals aren't bad today.

We're not idiots.

We all know that the loans are going to be impaired.

And if you think we're idiots, watch your outflows

for the next couple of quarters.

There will be no more inflows.

There will be outflows.

And so maybe there is an institutional buyer

that steps up to the plan and says,

you know, we'll take four billion off you.

We'll do it at 85 cents in the dollar.

Give your investor someone back.

People for people, not that I'm equating this to the GFC,

but people forget.

Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers,

all had record earnings in 07.

All of them.

Like what, what do you think caused the crash?

The bubble that preceded it.

They record record earnings.

The question, how did you have record earnings?

Right.

Now how did you, how did you generate those record earnings?

So scary talks aside, because this can be scary.

I think that the 5% liquidity feature,

thank God that exists.

I actually think it should,

I think they should stop launching

so many of these products.

Well, you don't have to worry about that.

Yeah, I don't,

because I just don't,

it's private credit or it's private equity,

but it's liquid, but it's not really liquid.

That's not liquid.

Or it's not liquid when you actually want it to be,

when other people are trying to get liquidity at the same time.

I, I just think it's a forever mismatch.

I'm not criticizing them.

I understand why they're raising money

from the public this way.

I understand the intention of partial liquidity.

I just think like people are not going to behave

the way you want them to.

And that would be 14% of my next question for you.

14% redemption is not Clifford.

Is this where you're going?

Oh, yeah.

So, okay.

Bank loans to non-depository institutions,

like regular companies.

This is private credit.

Hit $1.2 trillion last year.

That is a triple versus last year.

Not nothing.

Okay, okay.

This is a huge business with many players,

many very good players who have been in this market for decades.

What I'm going to say is not a recrimination of private capital.

Like people need to raise money.

People need to borrow money.

People put all that aside.

How did Cliffwater out of nowhere become

the most controversial name in Alts in 2026?

Because they were big last year.

They were big the year before and nobody gave a shit.

And whatever they were doing, whatever they have said,

whatever they haven't done,

they have now landed themselves

where there are six different reporters

at the Wall Street Journal filing stories on them

in the last five days.

And that takes something to reach that place.

They are now being more heavily scrutinized

than any other even blue owl.

Nah, bloody bear.

I'm not saying bigger or smaller.

I'm saying the level,

Cliff, because Cliffwater epitomizes

the wealth management connection.

Correct.

That's what I think is one of the main reasons.

But are there things that they are doing as a company

that's making the situation worse?

I wouldn't know.

I couldn't know.

But here's what I'll say.

So Cliffwater for people that don't know,

the reason why they are at the epicenter of this,

they've been in the institutional consulting space

forever and ever.

And they created an index for private loans.

And by the way, on the private loan front,

over 90% of companies in the United States

with revenues of $100 million or more

are privately held businesses.

And needs borrow money.

They can't just issue bonds for the public, okay?

And that's what the banks were for,

these syndicated loans,

and that's what private credit's for.

So it's not all bullshit.

Companies, these small businesses, they need money.

And these are the providers of capital, okay?

So there's nothing like, there's no smoke there.

But...

Well, there is smoke there.

There just may not be fire.

There was a ton of smoke there.

Boa's Weinstein says there's smoke.

The guy from Rubrik Capital,

who's in a former SAC hedge fund guy, says there's smoke,

doesn't mean there's fire.

I mean, I just mean at the idea of private loans.

That's what I mean.

There is absolutely smoke.

There is 100% smoke.

So Cliffwater just got hit with,

and they grew from, I don't want to,

would they find...

$40 billion, $40 billion, fine.

And would they find...

Giant fund.

$40 billion in 2021?

Well, we know how they did it.

They won't, they won't.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, the advisors did it.

The advisors did it.

The advisors did it.

Because, and if you put your clients into this fund,

and you took your clients out of this fund,

in a two-year window, you're in the penalty box.

You are in the penalty box.

Who's penalty box you in?

Name names.

I want a list of all the advisors that were deemed.

I'm kidding.

But here's...

What if the holdings have multiple meltdowns,

and the marks come way down?

Do they, those advisors still belong in your penalty box?

So, the advisors...

So, the advisors...

The advisors, ah, this is a good question.

I don't know the answer.

This is a good question.

The advisors are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Yes, that I know.

Okay, so in 2022, here's the story.

Why we talk about this?

Why did it go from three billion to 40 billion?

In 2022, as a 60-40 portfolio experience,

it's worst year since 1843.

What worked?

Floating rate bonds.

Private credit worked.

There was no procession, there was no defaults,

there were up double digits, they paid their coupons,

and boom, gasoline.

Okay, so the advisors said,

give me more and more and more and more,

and believe you me,

all of these private managers were happy to supply them,

and this is the problem.

This is the potential problem

that we're gonna learn over the next 12, 24 months.

Howard Marx says famously,

the worst loans are made in the best of times,

and this is the worry.

There is too much supply of capital,

and there's no way that there is that many companies

that need these loans,

and there were companies competing to give loans.

What does competing for loans mean?

Worst covenants.

Worst protection for the borrowers.

Worst protection for the borrowers.

So, they're a smoke,

and we are going to see,

and God forbid we enter a credit downturn.

Oh my God.

God forbid.

I don't know the right thing,

so I don't know the right thing to do.

Okay, what I could tell you is,

gigantic RIAs in our industry,

like $600 billion RIAs,

$100 billion RIAs.

It's a little incestuous.

There are RIAs that are owned

by the same parent company in the private asset world,

that Cliffwater is owned by.

Correct.

And they're recommending the Cliffwater Fund.

It, I mean, I don't even know,

like, in a different presidential administration

with a different SECG.

Yeah, that's questionable.

I see.

I can nuts to me,

but put that aside,

I don't even know what the right thing to do is,

if you are one of the advisors at these giant firms,

and they told you,

hey, we have a 5% allocation sleeve to Cliffwater

as part of our portfolio,

that means all of your clients,

5% of their money goes into this,

and you listened,

and you did what you were told by the investment committee,

and you have $10 million client,

who now has a half a million dollars

in a Cliffwater Fund, okay?

Something, whatever it is.

Yep, that's right.

Now, what is the right move?

A, call the client and say,

I couldn't tell you,

this thing has 3,800 different loans in the book.

I am not equipped to comb through

and tell you how many are bad.

Let's just redeem as much as they'll let us

over the next four quarters.

Is that the clown move?

Or is the clown move to say,

nope, I said it last year.

Therefore, it must be true.

This is the right fund.

It's the right asset class.

Stay the course.

And then some bullshit happens.

Yeah, okay.

So it's the, I don't know what's worse.

It's so bad.

So obviously the latter is worse.

And the latter is worse,

because you'll lose more money.

But I think you lose the client either way.

I don't know, I don't know.

But the interesting part is,

so the advisor based exactly on what you said

is stuck between a rock and a heart place.

Because if you say, yeah, we should redeem.

It's like, well, then why did you put me

in this three months ago?

Why did you buy this shit for me?

That's telling me to sell it, right?

So, but and also one part of the story

that's being not reported enough

and the financial media and there is smoke.

So listen, it's their job.

I'm glad that they're reporting on this.

They are so horny for a meltdown

because it's such a salacious story.

It's like, see, this is bullshit.

They're trying to stuff your 401Ks.

These billionaires, well, I get it.

I get it.

The interesting thing though is that these clients

that have requested their money back,

they're getting it back at Nav,

which is probably more than what they asked.

Right, so if clients,

if the Nav was in a 50% drawdown,

I think paradoxically a client might be more inclined

to stay the course.

Not on what I saw now.

I'm already down 15%.

They got their money out of whole.

That's interesting.

That's interesting.

Right, this, by the way,

this whole conversation we're having

and the 15% redemption request

that Cliffwater reported for last month, et cetera, et cetera

is happening against the context

where nothing's really gone wrong yet.

So God forbid, God forbid we enter a credit cycle, a downturn.

Well, everyone will be affected,

but this will look really bad.

Now, if you have an advisor that you thought

was your fiduciary and they are your fiduciary,

they thought they were doing the right thing,

they just, you need to recognize

that they might not be sure

what the right thing to do is right now.

Most advisors I know want to do the right thing.

It's an open question of what is the right thing to do

because it's sort of like it's a trap

and the only way out.

It's like President Obama.

Well, the only way out is if we don't have a credit event

in the country and cooler heads prevail

and the redemption's trickle away

and like these things can continue to operate

and the loans are good, then everyone will be fine.

But the reason why I find out, that's a way out.

The reason why I find that scenario unlikely

is because AI will impair a lot of these businesses

and a lot of these businesses, unfortunately,

and a lot could be two percent, that's a pun, right?

That's a pun.

Let's say, let's say 20 basis points

of these companies go to zero.

The headlines, dude, they're not a stop.

So as an advisor, that's part of your problem.

So if you know, if the headlines are not gonna stop,

you have to sell first.

That's your responsibility, unfortunately.

Unfortunately, you can't, but you can't sell enough

for it to really matter at once.

It's really tough.

What's the lesson for, like we're financial,

it's the lesson for advisors never take a risk

for your clients, because that's not good.

Or is it like, if the exit is this much, is this big,

but the entry is that big?

This is maybe under-allocate.

Well, this is, the lesson is,

know what you own, it sounds trite.

This is the classic asset liability question.

Nobody can, nobody can know what they own.

This, I know.

This is the classic asset liability mismatch.

All right.

Sean did a lot of work on our topic five,

but we have run out of time.

So I am gonna push this over.

That's like going anywhere.

Yeah, I'm gonna push this over into next week.

Sean, don't hate me.

You got some great charts here.

I just, I want to do one chart for topic six.

We'll throw the rest into the TKF.

Okay.

All right.

So I asked, I asked Chart Goat to make me a chart

of the worst performing stocks going into the Citrini

research piece and coming out, and this is a banger certified.

Throw it up, John, please.

So look at this line in the sand.

The red line, the red dots are the 100 worst stocks

in the S and P in the 70 on the X on the X axis.

Yes.

The ones that are that are down negative,

9% negative 10% more, okay?

With some down 40% in 17 sessions.

So these were the 100 names going into,

going into the 17 days prior,

and then the 17 days since, and look at the bounce to it.

Like this, this stands out.

Yeah.

There's a lot of software stocks that have since started

to outperform the Halo stocks since that he's hit.

Thank God we got a little bit of a reprieve.

Yeah.

I own a few of these.

That's not just software, that's 100 names

and they've bounced pretty strongly.

So we'll talk more about the stock market,

what's going on on.

Yeah, we have a great, you know what?

I don't want to step on it.

We have an amazing gap.

You could subscribe to the compound insider,

which I think we have a link in the description below

if you want to know the guest in advance.

We have great guests coming up this morning,

and we have so much to talk about with that person.

I'm super, I'm super excited for it.

Let's do make the case and mystery chart

we'll get out of here.

I want to talk about Uber.

I know some people might be sick of it.

And then do you own the stock?

I own a lot of it.

And I'm going to tell you,

I think it's going to break its downtrend here

because the news flow over the last four days

has been incredible.

And I think they're check mating,

they're check mating the entire autonomous opportunity.

I can envision a scenario where in five years

it's Uber and Waymo, and then Tesla sort of gets

to Tesla fans as their customer, and that's it.

And everyone else has to play nice

with Uber network because here's what's happening.

They just announced a strategic partnership with Zooks.

John, let's roll through that real quick.

So John's going to put that on screen.

Nope, the other one, the top one.

There we go.

You see that ridiculous looking horse and carriage-esque?

Zooks?

Carriage?

You see, whatever.

Well, these live at the Las Vegas Airport

and soon to be at LAX, I think.

Anyway, these are going to be on the Uber app

and Zooks is backed by Amazon.

And so what's interesting about these

is they have no front, they have no back

because they are bidirectional.

So they go this way, they go this way,

both are forward, there is no reverse.

You understand?

It's no trunk, there's no, right?

It's not really a car.

It almost looks like a Cinderella contraption,

like somebody turned a pumpkin into a carriage.

Anyway, big deal with Amazon backed Zooks.

Then they followed it up with a deal with Nissan and Wave,

which is another one of the technology companies.

Then they had another deal

and then they just announced with Nvidia,

28 cities by 2028.

So Nvidia to launch L4 software driven RoboTaxies on Uber.

Can you imagine?

Is there anyone you would rather have as a partner

for the autonomous driving future than Nvidia?

Because Nvidia is going to be the provider

to every OEM, Cadillac, Mercedes, Volvo, Volkswagen,

Porsche, Toyota, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

What Nvidia has built is the chip and software package

so that these OEMs can roll autonomous ready cars

right off the factory floor.

And that, I think, is what changes the game.

And that is how Uber becomes flooded

with autonomous ride options

from a million different providers,

thereby keeping this a one-on-one horse race

against Waymo, for example, or Tesla.

So these are very big deals.

Uber has responded.

The stock is up from 70 to it hits 78 today.

Put the chart back up real quick, guys.

I mean, it could roll right back over again,

and I'll look, and I'll have a egg on my face.

But we took the 50-day, not a ton of conviction.

I thought it should have been up more,

but it's possible that the stock is bottomed at 70

and that the next wave of Waymo headlines

are not gonna be as damaging as the last three months have been.

I think this is the cheapest growth stock

in the market today.

It's 15 and a half times forward earnings.

And I had Sean do some charts for me.

Man, the market hits the stock, huh?

Because they don't understand.

All right, Uber is in the cheapest quintile

of PE ratios within the S&P 500.

So it's the bottom 20% on valuation.

It is selling at a 36% discount

to the median stock in the S&P 500 on PE ratio.

On forward PE, it's 17 and a half, not as egregious.

The discount to the median tech stock 22 times versus 16.4.

It's cheap on every metric.

Let's show the growth expectations.

This is the craziest thing.

Yeah.

35.8% expected growth.

The median industrial stock, which is what Uber is considered,

8.7% growth.

The median tech stock 13 and a half percent.

And the median stock in the S&P 9 and a half percent.

Uber is going to triple the growth of the median stock

in the market more than triple.

And it's selling at a discount to all of them,

a substantial discount.

It breaks, it breaks my brain.

You usually don't see value-based growth stocks

hiding in plain sight like this,

but maybe this is one of them.

It's a $150 billion market cap doing 50 billion in revenue.

That's bizarre.

That's growing by 30 something percent.

I don't understand it.

It is bizarre, I'm with you.

I get it, like you're worried about Tesla CyberCare,

which doesn't mean it exists as a human in the front seat.

You're worried about that.

You're worried about Google coming,

and they're going to put Waymo onto the Waze app.

Yeah, they probably will.

Or they'll bundle it with Google Maps.

Yes, they probably will.

Fine.

But then the lift is out of the picture,

and Uber is back to a horse race with one competitor.

But the difference is, they will have autonomous vehicles

from companies backed by Amazon,

and Nvidia, and all the OEMs,

and all these other AI startups we haven't even heard of.

They're all going to list their cars on the Uber app,

because it's instant monetization.

Now, expensive it is to produce a fleet

of autonomous vehicles.

It's billions of dollars.

You want riders immediately.

Uber gives you riders immediately.

Am I talking to a wall?

How do people don't understand this?

I feel like I belong in a lunatic asylum.

All right, Mr. Richard.

Now, you know what?

We got late.

My Mr. Trust not going anywhere.

We can roll it up.

It's not timely.

Guys, thank you so much for watching.

Thank you for listening.

We appreciate everybody who came to the live.

You guys rocked the live chat.

I love that you all get to catch up with each other

each week in the chat for our show.

I think it's super cool.

Don't forget, tomorrow is an all-new animal spirits,

and we'll be back at the end of the week

with the compound in front.

We love you, goodnight.

Ritholds Wealth Management is a registered investment advisor.

Advisory services are only offered to clients or prospective clients

where Ritholds Wealth Management and its representatives

are properly licensed or exempt from licensure.

Nothing on this podcast should be construed as

and may not be used in connection with an offer to sell

or solicitation of an offer to buy or hold an interest

in any security or investment product.

Pass performance is no guarantee of future results.

Investing involves risk and possible loss of principal capital.

No advice may be rendered by Ritholds Wealth Management

unless a client service agreement is in place.